Topeka ? Faced with a looming budget deficit, Gov. Bill Graves ordered cuts in state spending and the withholding of funds to local governments.

But cities and counties have gone to the Kansas Supreme Court to get their money released, and advocates for the disabled are promising to sue to block cuts in social services.

The lawsuits are more examples of why the state has so much trouble cutting its spending when faced with an obvious crisis and little desire on the part of citizens for tax increases.

“In bad years like this one, lawsuits become more of the rule, more of the norm,” said Rep. Rocky Nichols of Topeka, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. “The more you cut essential services and programs, the more it’s going to motivate constituencies to take action.”

The reason Graves acted in November are not hard to understand, though the choices he made may puzzle or frustrate the people affected by his decisions.

A Sept. 11-damaged economy, already slowing before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, led to layoffs, particularly in aviation. Kansans have less income and are buying less, causing state revenues to slump.

Volatile financial markets wiped out the investment earnings that caused state tax collections to bulge in the late 1990s, and changes in federal tax laws, designed to stimulate the economy, have cut into states’ revenues as well.

Some legislators and political scientists also blame cuts in Kansas taxes enacted during the late 1990s; others, usually conservatives, blame profligate spending during the same period. It’s likely a combination of both – the usual spend-down-to-the-last-dime shortsightedness plaguing much of American politics for decades – made the budget problems worse.

Whatever the causes, Graves faced a $312 million deficit in the state general fund on June 30. The $4.1 billion general fund is what legislators worry about in a budget that approaches $10.8 billion; it’s where the state deposits most of its tax revenues.

Graves ordered $78 million in cuts to the current budget, sparing aid to public schools. He also withheld more than $94 million earmarked for highway projects and $48 million in aid to cities and counties.

“We need to make sure we get the right mix,” said Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Steve Morris, R-Hugoton. “Nobody likes cuts. We need to make sure we’re fair to everyone.”

But social service advocates don’t believe disabled Kansans are being treated fairly.

Interhab, which represents community groups providing services to the developmentally disabled, already is suing the state over what it views as historical underfinancing of programs.

Executive Director Tom Laing is confident Interhab will seek an order in Shawnee County District Court to block the $26.6 million in cuts from the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services’ budget. Expressing equal confidence about a lawsuit were officials at the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center.

They’re likely to raise questions about Graves’ power under Kansas law to make the cuts he did. They also are likely to question whether the state is violating rights for participants in programs to appeal they say are provided by federal law.

But those are arcane issues for judges. Essentially, social service advocates are arguing that even in times of budget crisis, the state owes its needy citizens heightened protection because of their vulnerabilities.

“If there’s an avenue to protect the people’s interests, we will,” Laing said.

Cities and counties are raising issues about Graves’ authority, but also questions of fairness. They’ve already set their budgets for 2003 and can’t change them, or their tax levies. Their only option is to pass any reductions along.

Graves leaves office Jan. 13, and Gov.-elect Kathleen Sebelius is likely to face the lawsuits as she tries to fashion a budget for the state’s next fiscal year. She has acknowledged that the picture is grim.

“We’re meeting eight hours a day, day after day,” she said. “Those choices are not attractive. The revenue coming in doesn’t cover the service demands that we have in this state. I don’t think there’s any question of that.”

In the past, advocacy groups have tried to pressure legislators into protecting areas of the budget. Such pressure aborted an early attempt at budget cutting during this year’s legislative session, and social service advocates are now drafting a package of proposed tax increases.

But many legislators don’t want to increase taxes, and one of Sebelius’ major campaign themes was that the state needed to do more with less money.

The court system offers a venue in which legislators’ desires to avoid tax increases that would anger their constituents, or Sebelius’ promises not to raise taxes, are irrelevant.

And if the courts choose to intervene, they will limit the options Sebelius and legislators have in pulling the state out of its budget problems.